Well, it's missing three guns facing rearwards, but other than that, yeah. Why you're not grouping A and B turrets into one line is a bit strange to me.

This was done when Juan raised the ammo load for the warships so they had more staying power. Problem was the larger/newest BBs couldn't then reload their ammo. It was a bug that got corrected by splitting out the turrets.

I suspect Posts #416 and #417 in this thread may be pertinent, as it seems my suspicions may have been right about the problem Guctony encountered when trying to replenish Yamato's main battery magazines.

The problem seems to lie in the hard-coded ceiling on ops point expenditure when attempting to replenish: if the replenishment cost for a particular weapons slots exceeds 1000 then the operation just gets aborted. With the Yamatos and possibly some Allied BB's, the increased ammunition load has this effect.

Since Guctony was able to replenish successfully his rear-facing main battery magazine (3 rifles in one triple mount), it may be that the only way the increased ammunition load can be accommodated is by having each main battery turret taking up a single weapons slot: Weapons slots 1 and 2 each having Num 3, Turrets 3, forward facing, and Weapons slot 3 having Num 3, Turrets 3, rear facing. That may overcome the replenishment problem, but at the cost of another weapons slot, which may introduce other problems, including possible exhaustion of slots. There might also be side effects upon the ship's gunnery in a surface fight.

Best to test, I would think.

<edit> I don't actually know whether there is a 1000 op point upper limit for replenishing a slot, but that was what Juan surmised. </edit>

They should be done as 3x3 (and they are done as 3x3 already, as far as I know). The number in "turrets" column is the number of barrels per turret, not the number of turrets. Post #926 is the correct setup. Post #917 is the wrong one. Don't be dense, John, please, you have even looked at the setup of the medium calibre already, so I don't know why you still missing the right idea.

Othwerwise, you can send me the file if you think you've done all you wanted to.

I suspect Posts #416 and #417 in this thread may be pertinent, as it seems my suspicions may have been right about the problem Guctony encountered when trying to replenish Yamato's main battery magazines.

The problem seems to lie in the hard-coded ceiling on ops point expenditure when attempting to replenish: if the replenishment cost for a particular weapons slots exceeds 1000 then the operation just gets aborted. With the Yamatos and possibly some Allied BB's, the increased ammunition load has this effect.

Since Guctony was able to replenish successfully his rear-facing main battery magazine (3 rifles in one triple mount), it may be that the only way the increased ammunition load can be accommodated is by having each main battery turret taking up a single weapons slot: Weapons slots 1 and 2 each having Num 3, Turrets 3, forward facing, and Weapons slot 3 having Num 3, Turrets 3, rear facing. That may overcome the replenishment problem, but at the cost of another weapons slot, which may introduce other problems, including possible exhaustion of slots. There might also be side effects upon the ship's gunnery in a surface fight.

Best to test, I would think.

<edit> I don't actually know whether there is a 1000 op point upper limit for replenishing a slot, but that was what Juan surmised. </edit>

Yamato's 46cm guns have an effect of 3219. The calculation for guns is effect *2, which is 6438. Note that this is in "pounds". The 6 forward firing 46mm guns have 9 ammo points each. 6 * 9 = 54. 54 * 6438 = 347,652. There is an additional adjustment of *4. Don't recall what that is for. This raises to 1,390,608. Conversion to tons, with rounding gives us the final ops cost number of 696.

Bottom line, ops costs can delay rearming but Yamato is fully capable of rearming within the 1000 ops points limit.

They should be done as 3x3 (and they are done as 3x3 already, as far as I know). The number in "turrets" column is the number of barrels per turret, not the number of turrets. Post #926 is the correct setup. Post #917 is the wrong one. Don't be dense, John, please, you have even looked at the setup of the medium calibre already, so I don't know why you still missing the right idea.

Othwerwise, you can send me the file if you think you've done all you wanted to.

OK...perhaps it is drug, eghaustion, and/or denseness! Could be some, none, or all...

ORIGINAL: John 3rd Would love to raise Tone/Chikuma to 8 FP. BK--Is this info corraborated anywhere in your literature? If so, it would be quite useful. Think it is funny that I raised the Tone-Kai to 8 without this info!

The problem here is that the optimal number of planes for actual operations < the number of planes that can theoretically be operated from a ship. I would love to see Terminus or anyone else to comment on viability of this proposal...

Do you have the data for that ? For one mission i vaguely remember they carried 6 and another 3 because the planes weren't available. 6 is rare ... How many is pure speculation but the Japanese were quite conservative in the number of planes they designed on their CVs also - they never quote maximum capacity only practical maximum capacity . I see no point in the whole design if its like 3-4 you may as well build Mogami/Takao class ships instead of new design overheads , loosing the turret and having the clumsy all forward arrangement. ie Use the savings for a new design to convert some AVs and use the CVS for the fleet.

Agano's to me reflect the real desires of the 'Fleet' Faction of the IJN: stronger and built for battle. I just wish we could build two more of them but I understand the whole decision process we have made. As to the timeline concern, BK only two start deployed for battle. The IJN gets two more in 1942 and the last pair in 1943.

So since 2 are available in 41 these designs are finalized and decisions are made say 37-39 with the first 2 laid down at the end of 39/ first half of 1940. The issues are if they are designed for fleet action are they as good as existing designs eg Mogami/Takao for fleet actions ? Especially when you have spare Mogami class turrets and can use an existing design meaning the cost for the smaller ship will probably be the same ! For an air based scenario you could make a case for 12 * 6.1" and 12 * 100/65 instead of 15 * 6.1" and 8 * 5"/40 but i dont think its much of an improvement as the 5"/40 is quite decent..

Also there is no way the 80mm AA is available at this time, the 100mm would be a big stretch ( but too heavy) .

During the war obviously the historical Aganos make a stronger case as they use significantly less resources.

The ball is now in Stanislav's court. Just sent the Zip file to him with all the Mod Files.

He has a lot of work to do but, once complete, I have no doubt we shall have a much more different, streamlined Mod to work with. Should be a lot of fun to see the differences and how they impact the game.

Don't want to release RA 3.0, Scen 69 until the mythical patch comes out so we'll see how long that takes.

2Don Bowen: Yes, normally Yamato and other superbattleships can reload without problem, but Scen 70 increases ammo loadouts for all weapons. So, forward batteries of Yamato and several other classes ran into the reloading cap.

2John 3rd: Considering how testing must be actually done, the patch is likely to appear earlier than I'll be finished with the air side of things... I'll surely post here any major propositions from my side.

One thing, John. In Scen 70 ammo stores on battleships and the like are increased massively (which caused the "Yamato reloading problem"), on cruisers/newer destroyers they are increased by about 20-30% at most and on ships below destroyers they are untouched compared to the stock (this all is inherited from JuanG's scenarious...). If you wish, I can increase them at least for the ships I'll be working with.

While we're talking about escorts, it seems that C/D-class gets its late-war AAA armament from the beginning - see its initial scheme below - while Mikura doesn't get its supposed 18x25mm complement ever... Going to fix that, unless someone comments on how many ships actually were built with armament like this:

ORIGINAL: FatR 2Don Bowen: Yes, normally Yamato and other superbattleships can reload without problem, but Scen 70 increases ammo loadouts for all weapons. So, forward batteries of Yamato and several other classes ran into the reloading cap.

Well, it looks like you have run into the Law Of "try and tweak one thing and run into at least seven" Unanticipated Consequences. There's a couple more you haven't found yet.

Fukui gives no date for the enlargement of the AA armament on the Type 'C' and 'D' kaibokan in Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of the War.

In their monograph on the kaibokan, Lengerer and Rehm-Takahara say that augmentation of these vessels' original fit of 2 X triple 25mm mounts took place after completion of the first ships, up to 'about' CD 21. Jentschura et al give August 1944 as the completion date of this vessel.

Grounds for setting September 1944 as the availability date of an AA upgrade for these vessels?

One thing, John. In Scen 70 ammo stores on battleships and the like are increased massively (which caused the "Yamato reloading problem"), on cruisers/newer destroyers they are increased by about 20-30% at most and on ships below destroyers they are untouched compared to the stock (this all is inherited from JuanG's scenarious...). If you wish, I can increase them at least for the ships I'll be working with.

ORIGINAL: FatR 2Don Bowen: Yes, normally Yamato and other superbattleships can reload without problem, but Scen 70 increases ammo loadouts for all weapons. So, forward batteries of Yamato and several other classes ran into the reloading cap.

Well, it looks like you have run into the Law Of "try and tweak one thing and run into at least seven" Unanticipated Consequences. There's a couple more you haven't found yet.

While we're talking about escorts, it seems that C/D-class gets its late-war AAA armament from the beginning - see its initial scheme below - while Mikura doesn't get its supposed 18x25mm complement ever... Going to fix that, unless someone comments on how many ships actually were built with armament like this:

That actually isn't a bad looking vessel.

LY--Your date for the AA upgrade might be workable. Re-working the ASW Escorts is going to be all Stanislav.

Ideas, comments, and suggestions will be highly valuable since we are taking the Adm. Yamamoto streamlining and maximizing personnel in a new direction.

While start starts his work, I plan to continue working on a few other things:

1. A new introduction to the scenario.

2. Making sure that all of EJ's new artwork gets included. EJ--Can you whip-up something for the Allied Player that could replace one of the Allied Screens? Might be nice for the other side to get something new.

3. A serious examination of all starting LCUs and whether anything should be changed or not. Additionally we can settle on a few other Day One placements.

Fukui gives no date for the enlargement of the AA armament on the Type 'C' and 'D' kaibokan in Japanese Naval Vessels at the End of the War.

In their monograph on the kaibokan, Lengerer and Rehm-Takahara say that augmentation of these vessels' original fit of 2 X triple 25mm mounts took place after completion of the first ships, up to 'about' CD 21. Jentschura et al give August 1944 as the completion date of this vessel.

Grounds for setting September 1944 as the availability date of an AA upgrade for these vessels?

Thanks for the information, I'll pick September.

Anyway, easy of ASW tweak is mostly done, I've modified escort classes and USN sub durability (Type 2 DCs already had reduced range). Now I have to go through the extremely tedious process of changing the building queue of kaibokans by hand.

Spent a little time adding and changing the Introduction to 3.0. Any feedback would be appreciated! JWE and SuluSea--could you email me your names so I can appropriately note them?

The Reluctant Admiral is a Japanese 'what if' scenario based upon a greater contribution by Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku. The premise of the Mod is that Yamamoto exerted a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for a war he didn't want.

In choosing to do this Yamamoto changes the 4th Circle Building plan replacing the 3rd and 4th Yamato-Class Battleships with improved Shokaku-Class CVs and a pair of fast Battlecruisers. Other warships are added as planned within 4th Circle. The Japan Naval Air Arm is changed so that everything is staked to the Zero Airframe with a specialization of the Zero into a Land-Based Interceptor as well as CV-Based Fighters. Additional engineers and engineering vehicles are added to Naval Units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building and expansion needs. New and expanded Naval Yards, Heavy Industry, and Armaments are added at tremendous cost for the Japanese economy.

The foresight of the Admiral will payoff during 1942 and early-1943 as new ships and aircraft enter into the Japanese Order-of-Battle, however, the cost is steep. Though expanded and using modern aircraft many Japanese Naval Air units start with their experience lowered to reflect the dilution of the experienced pilots into new units. Supply and fuel reserves start at a much reduced state. The Japanese MUST take the DEI as fast as possible.

In a major change over the previous two versions of Reluctant Admiral, the 3.0 reflects more of Yamamoto’s influence upon the wartime Kaigun. First class destroyers are accelerated and emphasis is shifted to the AA Akizuki-Class at the expense of the more balanced Yugumo’s. Manpower is at a premium within the Fleet so Submarines, Escorts, and ASW forces all see a major retooling reflecting the Japanese quality over quantity belief.

It should be noted that not all the changes are for the Japanese. The Allies see some major changes in their starting locations, new air units, and several additional CVLs and CVEs. The added warships reflect a ‘stopgap’ counter to the increased Japanese strength found at war’s start.

How well can YOU do to use these new tools OR how well can you stop the Japanese Navy in its tracks as the Allies.

Ship Classes: 1)Stats of USN subs are brought in line with DaBabes. (Checked Type 2 DC, range was already at 375). 2)Stats for Mikura-class and C/D-class esorts tweaked. The number of DC racks is decreased, small-calibre AAA armament is changed towards more historical (as far as I can tell). 3)Changed the upgrade tree for Otori-class TBs to a weapon loadout more optimized against air and surface targets, and made the key upgrade available from 42/1. Three ships of the class (those in the invasion TFs) will start the game already upgraded. 4)Added a 6/45 kaited carrier upgrade for Matsu-class DDs (but not Tachibanas). Allegedly it was done IRL. It reduces their ASW and flak capabilities, though. 5)Made in-game ship classification a bit less confusing. Torpedo boats that retain their torpedo armament will stay torpedo boats. Only those stripped of it will be reclassified as escorts. 6)Slightly increased gun ammo loads to escorts.

Ships 1)Removed 33 Ukuru-class escorts from the queue. 2)Added 41 C/D-class escorts to the queue, and rearranged the production queue. Production of C/D class escorts will reach the peak in autumn of 1944, gradually decrease in the next five months, and drop radically from May of 1945 onwards, with the last ship arriving in September of 1945 (only about 6 ships from the stock queue arrive after this date anyway). I doubt that long-range escorts will be a priority need at this point...

Traskott, I believe we should give Allies greater number of reinforcements late in the war, but no conrete plans so far. The Allied side is unlikely to get more in-depth reworking than that.

Meanwhile: does anyone know why Japanese bothered with producing 120mm/45 10YT gun during the war, apparently even going as far as restarting its production? As far as I can tell, single-mount manually operated variant of 127/40 existed and had almost the same weight as 120/45 10 YT and 3YT mounts installed on many smaller ships, but wasn't mass-produced, even though 127/40 had slightly better overall characteristics (standard double mounts for 127/40 were better than anything made for 120/45, but this is a separate issue...). Why produce two guns that take practically the same tactical niche?